Judgment : Dt.29.6.2017
This is a complaint made by one Sri Amitava Jana of 1014, Motilal Gupta Road, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 082 against (1) Sri Sanjib Bhaduri and (2) Sri Amitava Chakraborty, partners of Home Place Interior, praying for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,500/- for the pending interior work which OP did not do, Rs.60,000/- for the rent amount and shifting charges and another Rs.1,00,000/- for causing delay in the interior work and litigation cost.
In brief the facts are that Complainant and his wife are the joint owners of a flat measuring about 1264 sq.ft. at 3rd floor of a building named NILIMA GARDEN. They both thought to get a flat furnished by interior designer and for that purpose they approached the OPs who are partners of Home Place Interior. Thereafter, Sri Sanjib Bhaduri, visited the flat and placed before the Complainant total project cost of Rs.3,75,000/- and Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- at that time.
Thereafter, as per agreement, Complainant paid Rs.3,70,000/- in total for interior work which was to be completed within 30 days. Further, Complainant has submitted that during the period he used to pay Rs.8,000/- as rent, after Complainant came to his flat he found that OPs did not do work to the tune of Rs.1,66,000/-. So, the Complainant issued a legal notice and asked for Rs.1,66,500/- with litigation cost.
OPs filed written version wherein they have denied the allegation of the complainant. Further they have stated that the allegation has not been supported by the documents. In the circumstances, they have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. The OPs have filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief to which Complainant has filed reply. Similarly, OP h as filed affidavit-in-chief where they have reiterated the facts of the written version and Complainant has filed questionnaire against that. Both parties have filed BNA where they asserted their cases.
On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief, questionnaires and replies, the main dispute, it appears as to whether OPs did the work as per the agreement entered into between them. On perusal of the affidavit-in-chief and complaint, it appears that Complainant has alleged that kitchen chimney for Rs.16,000/-, Gas Oven Rs.5,000/-, Centre table Rs.7,000/-, Kitchen sink Rs.2,000/-, curtain for windows Rs.10,000/-, two tube lights Rs.500/-, brackets Rs.3,000/-, colour Rs.6,000/-, false ceiling was not done coloured Rs.10,000/-, wardrobe 6 locks not done, glass fittings not done, hanger fitting not done Rs.20,000/-, hydraulic bed Rs.5,000/-, mandir Rs.2,000/-, no tiles as per full modular kitchen Rs.30,000/-, commode and basin are dirty Rs.5,000/-, study unit Rs.2,000/-, T.V. Unit Rs.1,000/-, LED light for false ceiling Rs.2,000/- and labour charges Rs.40,000/- and other fittings and fixtures.
As per the agreement, it appears that Complainant has alleged that OPs did not provide the above mentioned fittings and fixtures and for that the claim has been made. However, on a comparison between the list of OPs and the above mentioned fixtures and fittings, it appears that there is no specification as what was provided and what was not provided. Admittedly, the Complainant is in possession of the flat. But, he has not furnished as to what has been done by the OPs as per the list and what has not been done. It is because, the list of the OPs does not match with the deficient fixtures and fittings as mentioned in the complaint.
As such, we are of the view that Complainant failed to prove the allegation brought in the complaint.
Hence,
ordered
CC/433/2016 is dismissed on contest.
